The current Symptom/sign archetype was first published in October 2015 following a seven month review process. Since then the archetype has had several breaking changes applied, and has been sitting in the ‘Reassess’ state since April 2018. The COVID-19 related work of early 2020 led to the creati…

I think these are good changes. ‘Nil significant’ was always a bit tricky and the new screening questionnaire is better suited for that ‘closed questioning’ type of situation. The only other change to Symptom (I have just submitted a CR) is to widen the Severity rating limit to 0.100 from 0…10 as …

[image] ian.mcnicoll: The only other change to Symptom (I have just submitted a CR) is to widen the Severity rating limit to 0.100 from 0…10 as we have come across a few places where 0 to 100 is the range used. Could leaving it unconstrained be another option? It’s not inconceivable that othe…

I’d be happy with that - you can be sure someone will want 0…101 :frowning:

[image] siljelb: Could leaving it unconstrained be another option? It’s not inconceivable that other requirements may pop up? Which means values in data will not be computably comparable, e.g. graphing over time of severity of symptoms of chronic arthritis would no longer work (well, it migh…

In theory that should be possible (though probably not as useful as you might think) but it requires everyone to be working of the same hymn sheet and like it or not there are a million different approaches to recording 'severity/ The best we can do is mandate ate national/ regional/ condition-speci…

How about keeping the DV_QUANTITY at 0…10, and adding DV_PROPORTION as an alternative data type for other ranges?

That would work technically but It would need quite a good explanation of how to use proportion, let’s say to model a score from 0 to 153, just to be awkward! That could be done in description and comment, of course.

Support strongly that values in an individual are reliably computable: time-serialisation is central to practice. I have researched 20 commonly-used scoring systems, and would observe: those that are indexes are expressed as %, so values never exceed 100. of the others, max value range is 27, for…

[image] colinbro: Or is there another way to directly model those few scales that use higher-resolution data? Most standardised scores and scales would be modelled as separate OBSERVATION archetypes, I think.

Agree they are their own entities with their own very specific definitions

Revisiting symptom/sign

Clinical

thomas.beale (Thomas Beale) 15 September 2021 10:42 5

Which means values in data will not be computably comparable, e.g. graphing over time of severity of symptoms of chronic arthritis would no longer work (well, it might work by accident, but it would not be reliable). If it had to be unconstrained I’d say you should require a numerator and a denominator, i.e. a ratio. Then you can compare severities across Observations…

Topic		Replies	Views
Clinical scales - ordinal or coded text? Clinical modelling-patterns	26	2873	27 May 2020
Extra data elements in archetypes representing clinical scores and scales Clinical archetype , modelling-patterns	29	1392	5 February 2020
Scores or scales with mixed data types or explicit NULL values Clinical archetype	60	1716	24 April 2025
Z-scores and percentiles Clinical rm , archetype	79	1502	3 December 2021
Multiple values in C_DV_ORDINAL constraints Clinical (archive)	17	30	29 September 2011
Ankle brachial pressure index Ask IEB archetype	21	956	13 February 2023
Range containers in ordinals Clinical archetype	22	576	11 December 2023
[Dcm] terminfo meeting room requirements/Planning for Phoenix Clinical (archive)	40	29	22 June 2008
Is a Score an Observation or an Evaluation (philosophy fun)? Ask IEB scores	23	1810	6 December 2022
Normal range/reference ranges for text data type Clinical (archive)	17	28	30 September 2016

Revisiting symptom/sign

Related topics